Talk:Evesham Township, New Jersey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge discussion[edit]

It seems to me that the Marlton article should be merged into the Evesham Township article. To quote this article:

"Marlton" is often used in place of the township's name, even when referring to locations beyond the boundaries of the CDP.

Evesham is not one of those NJ townships that really has more than one distinctive CDP or "town" within it. "Marlton" is commonly used to refer to the entire township, so the two articles seem a bit redundant.

Legalskeptic (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Marlton is a CDP that is statistically separate from Evesham Township. Dough4872 15:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From v Over[edit]

I changed the word "from", (correctly) to "over". Either one is correct; it is not a big deal, but "over" indicates the direction of the change and makes the article more understandable to the reader.

Why are you (User:Alansohn) reverting edits that improve the article and calling them (in this edit [1]) WP:Vandalism, which is defined as "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia"? WP:Vandalism goes further to state that "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."

I do not consider my edits to be "misguided", but even if they are, why would you violate the Wikipedia policy by labeling my edits as vandalism? One could consider your actions as Wikipedia:BULLYING, "the act of using the Wikipedia system and the power of editing to threaten or intimidate other people". While, I sincerely hope that is not the case, it appears that when I edit any article related to the state of New Jersey, it is quickly reverted by you, sometimes overtly (and often with a rude, belligerent edit caption), and sometimes it appears that you disguise the edit within a misleading edit caption. There are numerous wikipedia policies and essays directed towards the behaviours mentioned above. I am sure you are quite aware of them, but here are a few nonetheless. Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Right to Edit.

You cannot prevent others from editing articles. You don't own Wikipedia, all articles in the state of New Jersey, nor even this one article. Please stop your attempts to prevent others from making positive contributions to Wikipedia.

In conclusion, while I feel that "from" is perfectly legitimate, use of the word "over" clarifies the meaning, improving the understandability of the article. If others do not agree, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't classify the change as "vandalism".Jacona (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to discuss the changes. There are some circumstances where describing an increase as being "over" may make grammatical sense. Employees can receive a pay increase of 7% over three years, and using "from" in that context would make no sense. A population increase is properly described as being an amount of increase or decrease versus a base year, and using "over" in the context is unclear and confusing, if not completely wrong. The article states that "the township's population was 45,538 reflecting an increase of 3,263 (+7.7%) from the 42,275 counted in the 2000 Census"; It didn't increase "over" any more that a decrease could be described as "under" the previous amount, so "from" is accurate. I certainly cannot prevent any editor from editing any article, but I hope that I can work to ensure that articles make sense, as I have done here. This wording has appeared in hundreds upon hundreds of articles for years without comment, complaint or change. I'm not sure what the purpose here of stalking my edits and making changes that as you admit in your edit summary are "not an improvement". Why exactly are you monitoring my edit history and stalking me at articles that I've edited which you've never edited before, be it Evesham Township or Cooper Union (see here)? Is it spite, malice, making a WP:POINT? I don't know, you do. Be it vandalism, harassment, stalking, whatever the intention here, it needs to stop. Alansohn (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. I disagree with your analysis of the grammar. The change provides clarity by emphasizing the direction of the change, rather than confusing the reader as you assert.

2. I will attempt to WP:AGF here, but it seems rather obvious that "not an improvement" referred to the previous edit, in which you called my good faith edit "disruptive", not to the edit I was making. 3. Why do you call this vandalism? You don't address this. It is clearly not vandalism.

4. If making any edit whatsoever to an article one has not edited before is somehow "vandalism", how have any edits other than page creation ever been made?

5. Allegations of stalking: What makes you think I'm going through your edit history? I in fact have looked at articles edit histories, and have in many cases have avoided making edits to articles in which you were the previous editor, to avoid any such perceived conflict. However, I've been bouncing around New Jersey, largely following wikilinks from one article to another, particularly today the New Jersey Athletic Conference. I notice that you show up in the edit history of almost every page involving New Jersey. If it is unacceptable to start editing a page that you have not edited before, New Jersey would be solely your domain. Is that what you are trying to accomplish here?

Please allow other editors, including myself, to improve Wikipedia articles in New Jersey. Please Assume Good Faith. Please do not bully, or assert ownership over these articles.

Thanks for your cooperation! Jacona (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too am assuming good faith, but your edits to Cooper Union are a bit of a problem. Never edited by you before and not in New Jersey. Any explanation for the stench of stalking (see here, for a reminder)? Alansohn (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing a good job of avoiding the subject of your accusations of vandalism, etc. How is calling another's edits "vandalism" assuming good faith? It is exactly the opposite!

And what are you insinuating on cooper union? Is that your territory, ineligible for others to edit? They look like good edits to me.Jacona (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh excuse me, I missed your point. You're claiming I'm stalking because I edited Cooper Union. After 5 days, I'm not sure why I edited that article. I've edited a couple hundred in the last week or so, and I'm sure most of them were not in New Jersey, many of them had never been edited by me before. Does that make all of those edits "stalking"? I don't think so, but you're free to do so if it makes you feel wanted. Now let's talk about how calling my good faith edit "vandalism" was assuming good faith...You still have not replied to that.Jacona (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a walk through your edit history over the past week, the overwhelming majority of of which is vandalism reversion, and look at the edits after this one. In addition to taking a bizarre interest in my New Jersey edits, you also jumped across the Hudson River to edit the Cooper Union article, just hours after I edited it. I'd edited the article before, so it was on my watchlist; you had never done so. I'm sure there's a great reason, but please understand that those edits come across to me as stalking. Everything since then, including the persistent edits of articles I've edited, such as this one for Stafford Township, New Jersey only seem to confirm this rather creepy feeling. I can assure you that I haven't been stalking your edits and I sincerely hope that there is an appropriate justification for yours. Maybe it's just me, but how about we both try to understand where we're coming from and both of us take a step back? Alansohn (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to take a step back. You have had ample opportunity to address the issue of good faith and have chosen not to. I will assume that nevertheless, it's a mere oversight on your part. As to stalking, I re-read the policy. It states, in the section what is not harassment that stalking is not merely editing the same page, nor is tracking a user's history for policy violations. Please, by all means, take a step back from bullying, incivility, failing to assume good faith, and asserting ownership over articles. For my part, I will attempt to be even more civil if and when you do. Deal? Jacona (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, I own nothing; Productive edits are kept and unproductive edits are removed; I do this just as you have and you are free to edit any article you wish. On the other hand, WP:HARASS describes that "Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." and goes on to say that following other editor's edits "should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." Stalking / harassment, as described, is the impression I get from the editing history. Sure, it comes off to me as stalking and you've offered no explanation for the edits to justify them. Despite that, I'm still willing to take a step back and I hope that you are ready to do the same. Alansohn (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that I have harassed you. I plan to continue editing New Jersey articles to make them better, and do my best to follow Wikipedia policies. Based on the conversation here so far, I suspect you consider any editing of New Jersey to be "stalking". I really can't solve that problem for you. Jacona (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have harassed me. You've been caught with your pants down and Cooper Union is the evidence. You can solve the problem by ending this harassment and getting off my ass. I too plan to continue editing New Jersey articles to make them better, often by adding sources and content, not just tweaking a word here and there. Alansohn (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have not harassed you, and my pants remain firmly on my butt. I'm sure you feel superior in your edits, but I really don't think the rest of the community agrees with you. If you feel I have harassed you, please take it up with the proper Wikipedia authorities instead of continuing to fill legitimate pages with garbage like this. I will not post here on this topic again, but I'm pretty sure you will.Jacona (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Evesham Township, New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Evesham Township, New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evesham Township, New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evesham_Township,_New_Jersey&oldid=1199020160"